Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Smh .. Like I said earlier both sides need to CTFD and stop making such a big deal about it. There are worse companies and people that they can focus that energy on.

Click to expand...

It's sad. There we even a tonne of LGBT workers at Firefox who fully supported him and said they wanted him to stay. Guess they got drowned out by all the hipsters that tweeted for him to resign for the "image".
Somebody shouldn't be judged on something they did so long ago. People seem to think it's impossible for someone to change their views throughout their entire lifetime.
When I was a kid I hated lasagne. Now I love it. It's not like if I visited my mother and she banned me from eating her lasagne because I told her I hated it when I was 7. That's just plain retarded and short sighted.
This is why we can't have nice things.

Also others were saying he had some good ideas for Firefox new direction to take and everyone pretty much ignored the good parts to him and demonized him for simply being different then they were. They are too quick to judge people for their politics instead of their person.

he wasn't even stating he was against gays he was stating he was against them getting married AT THE TIME. People put words in his mouth as they normally do to people...

If I can learn to still like someone that hates cats and never wants to ever touch one again then people can learn to overlook Eich and judge him based on his leadership and how he will develop Firefox even better as well as focus on the positives.. People loose sight of the big picture very easily. They are very tiny minded single issue people that make this their life and thier sole identitiy and it's toxic and needs to be gotten rid of

I am wondering if it was just a convenient time to move him out and replace him with an ad-friendly CEO. From what I read, he didn't even want to be the CEO but they couldn't find anyone else to do it.

1) it was in 2008
2) it was his personal life
3) the initiative he funded didn't change anything, and it wasn't a significant amount of money
4) liberal dream icons like Obama also opposed gay marriage
5) he was a supporter of a free web, however Mozilla was going to roll out targeted ad pages within the browser.
6) he was only ceo for 2 weeks, maybe they had buyer's remorse

I switched to Pale Moon's browser yesterday, since I don't want to have my Firefox update and suddenly fill with ads.

This just a mere glimpse into the fascistic future we all face, where the elitist minority force their beliefs upon you, and call you a bigot for having your own opinion that is not in lock-step with theirs.

Feel sorry for yourselves if you must, but you have brought this upon your own heads by your apathy and hedonism.

Sorry, or not so much, but any religion that decides they need to force their belief system on you is defective. Any religion that teaches its followers that you should belittle, demean, be cruel, or otherwise make your fellow man feel worse about himself, is defective. Any religion that teaches that those who don't "believe" should be persecuted, harmed, killed, etc, is defective.
A religion should make people feel closer together, feel better about themselves, make themselves feel like they want to improve upon their own being, and try to make the lives of those around them better. If a religion tells you otherwise, it's defective.

Brandon is free to feel about things as he likes, but just like every other figure in the public eye, surely understood that his choices would have consequences, both favorable and unfavorable. However, I disagree with his choice, simply because it does not favor leaving people alone to do things as they see fit, but instead attempted to force his viewpoint upon other people.

A Michigan circuit judge put it best. “Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives,” but “these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection of the law. The same Constitution that protects the free exercise of one’s faith [also] prevents the state from ... enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose.” "The guarantee of equal protection must prevail."

Sorry, or not so much, but any religion that decides they need to force their belief system on you is defective. Any religion that teaches its followers that you should belittle, demean, be cruel, or otherwise make your fellow man feel worse about himself, is defective. Any religion that teaches that those who don't "believe" should be persecuted, harmed, killed, etc, is defective.
A religion should make people feel closer together, feel better about themselves, make themselves feel like they want to improve upon their own being, and try to make the lives of those around them better. If a religion tells you otherwise, it's defective.

Brandon is free to feel about things as he likes, but just like every other figure in the public eye, surely understood that his choices would have consequences, both favorable and unfavorable. However, I disagree with his choice, simply because it does not favor leaving people alone to do things as they see fit, but instead attempted to force his viewpoint upon other people.

A Michigan circuit judge put it best. “Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives,” but “these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection of the law. The same Constitution that protects the free exercise of one’s faith [also] prevents the state from ... enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose.” "The guarantee of equal protection must prevail."

Click to expand...

The thing was he wasn't a public figure when he made that contribution, and he only has been a public figure for the past 2 weeks since he was chosen as CEO. Should he be forced to recant his belief?

This just a mere glimpse into the fascistic future we all face, where the elitist minority force their beliefs upon you, and call you a bigot for having your own opinion that is not in lock-step with theirs.

Feel sorry for yourselves if you must, but you have brought this upon your own heads by your apathy and hedonism.

Click to expand...

I'd rather be called a bigot than sentenced to imprisonment such as in the McCarthy era. you seem to think this is a new trend but this is the way human beings have always operated, and this is simply the new group in power. You may not agree with them but don't pretend they are any different than your preferred group in regards to pushing your beliefs on others.

The thing was he wasn't a public figure when he made that contribution, and he only has been a public figure for the past 2 weeks since he was chosen as CEO. Should he be forced to recant his belief?

Click to expand...

Recant? That's between him and whom or what ever holds final say after we die. But should he focus more on making other lives better around him than promoting a cause that seeks to prohibit and discriminate against his fellow man? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Why did this happen? There are more terrible CEOs out there, which still practice terrible behaviors. Where is their protest?
Why this guy? Two weeks as a CEO means nothing. He didn't influence anything about Mozilla. We like to say that judging people on their merits is fair, but this guy didn't get to be judged fairly.
Why is this a victory? A bunch of whining can get a CEO to step down for his personal life choices, and this is something to take pride in? I don't judge a company based on their leadership, but the output of their effort.
Why did people believe this was going to accomplish anything? It's socially acceptable slut-shaming. These people don't have the balls to defend their own beliefs, but penalize someone for theirs. I may not agree with the anti-gay rights lobby, but this is 'Murica. You've got the right to have a dissenting and backwards viewpoint here. Why else are we paying taxes to turn corn into ethanol?

Most of all, why can't we be allowed to hear the conversation? One side makes a lot of noise, and generates negative PR. The other side is drowned out by biased reporting. I believe the colloquialism is a "witch trial." You are guilty until proven innocent, but never allowed to talk in the court of public opinion. Assuming this guy responded like the management of Chik-filet, then we'd have something to talk about. Instead, he decided to do the cowardly thing and back down. I hate that he was crucified for no reason, but what I hate more is that he didn't have the conviction to address his attackers. In two weeks everyone would have forgotten about the attacks. Instead, we have a CEO acquiescing to the demands of entitled idiots. Sad days indeed.

On a side note, why the heck isn't there more comparison with the Chik-filet CEO going on? Same situation, only that guy drew a line in the sand. I don't support his hate, but that kind of stance against being cowed is admirable.

Edit:
Allow me to be clear. Banning homosexual partnerships is stupid. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone. Love and acceptance are difficult to find, and should be cherished as such.

At the same time, I support people who want to ban gay unions, the KKK, and racist groups. For those paying attention, that's a rather substantial dichotomy of thought. Unfortunately, it isn't. Allow these hate mongers to speak, and they generally prove to people why their views are stupid. If you allow them to hide in the shadows they prey upon people willing to trade their beliefs for acceptance into a group. I say we allow the light of reason to burn away the cockroaches of hate and bigotry, so we might one day move past them.

Who says the fact that he "backed down" is a bad thing? Was the wrong thing? Maybe, he had a change of heart, accepted this as the consequence of having made a poor decision in the past, and bowed out gracefully, allowing the company to move on with the business of being a company?

As for allowing the light to burn out the cockroaches, and having the discussion, personally, I prefer to stomp cockroaches, not allow them to escape to regroup another day, and I also prefer not to have those discussions. Never have an argument with a fool: passers by may not be able to tell the difference. A man who believes his "faith" entitles him to lower the people around him to make himself feel better? Fool.

It goes the other way, the next step is firing people for donating to liberal causes.

I am not against gay marriage either, I just think it is wrong to sack someone for donating money for a personal, privately held belief that that person didn't associate in anyway with the company or with their public profile.

I am not against gay marriage either, I just think it is wrong to sack someone for donating money for a personal, privately held belief that that person didn't associate in anyway with the company or with their public profile.

Click to expand...

He wasn't sacked, he stepped down. If he is allowed his opinion, OKCupid is allowed theirs too. That is the logic circle we are talking about here. The only issue is that OKCupid isn't likely to be labelled a homophobic hatemonger for their opinion...

Who says the fact that he "backed down" is a bad thing? Was the wrong thing? Maybe, he had a change of heart, accepted this as the consequence of having made a poor decision in the past, and bowed out gracefully, allowing the company to move on with the business of being a company?

As for allowing the light to burn out the cockroaches, and having the discussion, personally, I prefer to stomp cockroaches, not allow them to escape to regroup another day, and I also prefer not to have those discussions. Never have an argument with a fool: passers by may not be able to tell the difference. A man who believes his "faith" entitles him to lower the people around him to make himself feel better? Fool.

Click to expand...

Have the discussion, and allow people to draw conclusions. That is what a free society is built upon. Anyone can say anything, but the better reasoned and supported argument wins.

Allow me, for just a moment, to stray from the topic. A couple hundred years back black people were treated as chattle. The reason that this was allowed to happen was that people spread a sort of cognitive dissonance, which pervaded because of a lack of logic and reasoning. Black people, white people, and every other variation of melanin level in-between are equals. Whenever people stood up, and said that everyone should be treated equally, we started a debate. This debate raged into a war, but both sides were allowed to speak.

As reasoning individuals saw the debate they made opinions. A person who treated his fellow man with utter contempt proved that his views were retarding development. The opposing view did not have the same problems, so it spread. Allowing slave owners to show how their beliefs of superiority were fallacious did more to galvanize people against them than a thousand speeches about human equality.

Tying this all back, we've still got racists who believe anyone not white is somehow a lesser being. That particular cockroach still lives, yet anywhere the opportunity is available the light drives these cockroaches away. That is how we effect change. These social justice types seek to do what you are suggesting, stomping out any beliefs that don't align with their own. That is not equality, that is fascism. You cannot influence change by forcing others to believe what you want, you have to spread your beliefs by proving their voracity.

I have a problem here not because the message was bad, but because they spread a good message in a horrible way. They bullied a man into stepping down, rather than jeopardize the futures of the people working under him. That is an unacceptable use of extortion, and these people need to be muzzled before they cause real damage.

If they have the stated goal of supporting marriage equality then there are ways to go about it. Flood your local government with letters supporting equal marriage right for homosexuals. Peacefully protest companies which discriminate against homosexual relationships. Develop legislation supporting your causes. All of these things enact real change, and take people putting in real effort. A bunch of jerks stirring up a media sh**storm, without ever offering the guy a chance to speak his mind, isn't enacting change. It's holding the success of a company hostage to a set of beliefs (no matter good or bad), and giving the CEO the option of either stepping down or screwing up the company. The LGBT individual who has been working for Mozilla for years is placed in a position where they are being held hostage, which isn't acceptable is your actual goal is supporting equal rights for the LGBT community.

If you want to attack this guy personally, camp out on his front lawn with protest signs until he changes his mind. Don't tie Mozilla's company success to one man's opinions.

Edit:
I will concede one point. If Mozilla suddenly "decided" to include advertising against the LGBT equality cause in their programs I'd say that you can reasonably start boycotting Mozilla products. The thing is, I haven't seen any change in Firefox within the last two weeks.

You only have a cause if you've got something to fight for (or against). This CEO has literally done nothing wrong with Mozilla. His personal life choices suck, but last I checked the CEO of McDonalds has made significantly more bad decisions without ever damaging the McDonalds brand. How do you reconcile this with the response here? I cannot, which is why I am defending these loathsome beliefs. I don't agree with them, but free speech requires that they be allowed to be voiced.

What about also the CEO of dominos pizza that built a luxury community in prime Puma habitat in florida? Nobody made a stink about that and it was way worse and it's causing problems in the area. yet people still order domino's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Monaghan also tied to pro-life groups (which most of the same people (CREDO ACTION) that are in arms against this also have targeted pro-life groups), bain capital (which sends tons of us jobs overseas) and lots of other stuff... yet NONE OF THESE 'ACTIVISTS' ARE IN ARMS ABOUT THAT?!

Yet they go after Eich for ONE THING that happened in 2008 and it wasn't all that bad or that detrmental in the end.

Actually, he did speak his mind, he chose to support an attempt to demean other human beings. As a human being, I disagree with that, and he saw the error in his stance and decided to acquiesce the point. Why is it, that just because he lost the discussion, you insist there wasn't one? Did it not go on long enough?

What I don't understand, is that several here don't seem to get it. He did something, not just speaking it, not just arguing his point, which is in itself bad enough that he believes he's right in it, but he did something about it, attempting to make someone else in the human race, many of them, feel like lesser people! Supported an action that does harm to people, and "it wasn't all that bad.."?? Why does it matter when he did it, what people said when they reacted to it, how they chose to show their displeasure with his actions (accepting that no physical harm was done)? He chose a path that was counter to the peaceful existence of another human being, and suffered the punishment. So what? Lesson learned, I hope.

This was not an attempt to "stifle" his belief, his was an errant action from a misled child, who was shown the error in his path. Did he resign to save face for the company, or is it true wisdom that came to him, and he believed that to show his acceptance of his errors, he applied a self-punishment? I'd like to think the latter, but my bet is on the former. We had a saying in the Navy for when a student had problems with an area, and couldn't seem to get it. "Student knows correct answer when told". Too many don't.

His method of "having the discussion" was not to apply himself in a public forum and debate the topic on the scientific facts, but instead was choosing to provide funding for an action that causes harm to other humans, based solely on being told that his religion is right when it says these people are lesser. That religion did the same thing for race inequality for decades in our culture. "Discussion" didn't stop it, as much as I admired MLK's stance. It took Violence and brute force, use of and threat of both, ie the National Guard, et al.

I fought 6 years for his right to stand up and be a flaming idiot in public, if he so chooses. I would stand in front of anyone who attempted to prevent him from being allowed to speak his mind. (And as soon as they left, I'd turn and tell him he's a flaming idiot. ) But when he applies actions that cause damage to his fellow humans, he has escalated his errors. The public chose to escalate their corrective actions accordingly.

At some point in time, those of us with children understand, you can't keep saying in a quiet, calm voice "Don't do that. It's wrong. You're hurting him. Stop that." The child has to be corrected in some other, more firm action, by you or the entity he's damaging, whether it be another child or an animal (well, you were twisting his arm, he's going to do something back; you pulled his tail, he's going to scratch) or an adult raising a voice or physically correcting the action. He heard people around him say "Stop that. It's wrong", and he did something more anyway. Society chose to raise its voice.

Discussion should be met with discussion. Ignorant discussion should be attempted to be reasoned with, on a limited basis, and then ignored if ignorance persists. Actions require reactions. He acted. Society reacted. He attempted to help twist someone's arm. They twisted his. Hopefully, lesson learned. His parents obviously didn't teach him to play nicely with others, and this is the consequence.

Discussion should be met with discussion. Ignorant discussion should be attempted to be reasoned with, on a limited basis, and then ignored if ignorance persists. Actions require reactions. He acted. Society reacted. He attempted to help twist someone's arm. They twisted his. Hopefully, lesson learned. His parents obviously didn't teach him to play nicely with others, and this is the consequence.

Click to expand...

The bit in bold is important. This form of argument can go anywhere but ultimately, reasoned discussion or temperance will fail when rallying against any form of fundamental cultural and/or religious belief. I don't believe in truly free speech as preaching of hatred does not always make people look idiotic as some naive people like to think. Freedom of speech is a right in order to protest against government and power. Freedom of speech is not meant to be held in such a way as to preach hatred of your fellow human because they are 'different'.

It's a shame that it is almost universally a religious doctrine that initiates much hatred but this is easily stirred up by involving cultural and socio-economical factors. Who heroically built the railways in America? The Irish and the Chinese. Who received hatred when the recession hit and the jobs disappeared? Go figure. It's the same across the world. Islamism often spreads quickly in illiterate 3rd world nations as strong willed people coerce the educationally deprived into a radical and 'manipulated' version of a belief. Christianity is the same in certain areas.

All it takes is a charismatic person with a strong belief to make other believe. Free Speech allows such things to happen. It shouldn't be universal. If I choose to hate you because of your skin colour, I shouldn't be allowed to speak about it. If I hate Obama because of his skin colour, I'm an idiot. If i speak out against him because i disagree with his policies, then that is fine.

This guy made a mistake and as 'Ahhzz' said, he actively tried to force his own believes to the detriment and equality of others. The way to make recompense for that is to then make public speeches about how it's actually okay. It doesn't matter how long ago you did something. It only get's to be okay when you make amends. Time doesn't heal - it conceals. Only actions heal.

The true way to see things is on a personal level only. If the guy's of a religious nature that doesn't tolerate gay marriage - whoopty do for him. He can happily be not gay. He doesn't get to force that on someone else.

I also love to see the term liberal fascist being used. A liberal embraces freedom, which involves equality. If a liberal stands against something it means that thing opposes freedom. It doesn't make them fascists. Problem is the media and the distortion of the truthful elements.

Best course of action for all of this? Go hug your family and thank 'whoever the fuck you want' that you can build your own PC and talk to cool geeks on TPU.

The dominos guy decimated a wild population of puma/cougars and caused environmental damage/issues. Yet people think Eich is worse???

Click to expand...

??? Noone here is saying he killed anyone. I haven't seen anyone else say that either. Noone but you is comparing Eich to "The dominos guy". To follow your logic, however, since the dominos guy didn't sentence several million people to death in Nazi concentration camps, is what he did really that bad? Because someone else in history has done something "bad", we should not address any future "bad" things that occur? I find your logic flawed.

This is not a comparison. The man made a poor life choice, based on a defective belief system, which caused one group of human beings to be treated as lesser people. People found out that he supported bullying, and called him to account for it. They addressed the company that was supporting him with their concerns. Some other companies took their concerns very public (OKCupid). He (hopefully) saw that he shouldn't support bullying, and as a personal sign of regret, resigned his position. Should he ahve to pay his entire life for that poor judgement? Absolutely not. Even his flawed belief system teaches forgiveness. If he is repentant, if he accepts that he made an error in judgment, if he knows that he was wrong to twist that other child's arm, then all is forgiven, and from my stance, he moves on with his life, and becomes a productive member of society. If he still hasn't figured out bullying is wrong? Then he needs to keep being "punished" for bullying. Which from my standpoint, means not supporting the company that hires him. Publicly decrying their decision, and his continued lack of education and upbringing.

I am not comparing Eich to that guy ok, I'm just stating that the other guy had issues as well, yet not getting near the hate.

What I think should happen is marriage thrown out entirely. It's archaic and something that isn't even taken that seriously anymore. So why bother even having it. People shouldn't need a piece of paper to prove their love anyways... so why does it matter? Tax issues? Nobody should be given different tax status based on marriage.

There seems to be a problem here, and I'll do my best to address it before I say anything else.

Free speech exists to protect every and any idea. It extends up to the point where you actually begin threatening the safety of your fellow man. If you somehow curtail this to mean that free speech only relates to protest against you government then you are a fool. Too many people give too much up to allow free speech, and not respecting their sacrifice is foolishness.

To that end, you do not have the right to not be offended. That guy standing outside a church preaching that God hates Fags may make you sick to your stomach (and I hope it does), but his right to free speech is no less than yours. That golf course that doesn't allow black people to join is spreading the belief that black people are somehow inferior, and this is their right. It is also within the rights of every black person in the area to allow the media to know this policy, and allow that golf course to respond. If they get the policy overturned because of pressures within the membership and community, all the better. If the policy stands then make sure not to offer them your patronage.

It is astute to point out that the last example is similar to what was done with Mozilla. The problem is that these people were not protesting a company policy, but the personal beliefs of the CEO. That is not free speech, but a form of black mail. The man was in office two weeks. In that time no changes had happened to the company output. There were no anti-equal rights policies instituted. There was no change to the company itself. O.K. Cupid took the opportunity to seize on what one man had done five years ago, and somehow link that to what he would do in the future. Somehow this man would make Mozilla a toxic environment, because in 2008 he offered money to a failed proposition to ban homosexual marriage. Not a call to ban homosexuality, not a call to hurt homosexuals, and not a call to demean homosexuals. This was specifically a ban on marriage.

The real problem isn't that he wasn't allowed to speak his piece. I'm pretty sure that if everyone on the planet was 100% accountable for everything they'd ever done we wouldn't have anyone championing social change. Five years ago I was in college, and I pushed to decrease the interest rate on college loans. Five years prior to that I wanted to remove half the people in my school, because they retarded the education process. Five years prior to that I supported random police searches of lockers, without probable cause, in schools. Tell me, now that I've changed my beliefs on these topics, am I a liar? Is it impossible for someone to subvert their personal beliefs to effectively run a company? How about the ability to express you beliefs, when your accusers are threatening the livelihood of those people working under you?

Free speech flows both ways. Rather than utilize the tools of free speech, this guy acquiesced to the demands of a rabid few that stirred up a media storm. That is the shameful part of this. There was full coverage of the people who called for his head, but his supporters could be found nowhere. What of his employees, or even himself, offering a statement. Nope, he just said "screw this, I'm going home." This isn't a win for equal rights. It isn't a win for social justice, or people speaking their mind. It's extortion of Mozilla by O.K. Cupid.

For a moment, imagine this in a slightly different context. The company is Bill's Buildings Inc. They utilize 100% US citizen's labor. They compete against Gustaff's Buildings Inc., who do the same but partially with illegal alien labor. Bill offers $10,000 to the minutemen, a group that "polices" the border looking for illegal crossings. They manage to parlay that $10,000 into 40 illegal immigrants stopped, and a raid on Gustaff's which removes 20% of their labor force. Who is in the right here?

Bill has followed all the available laws, and done nothing illegal. Gustaff has hired illegal aliens, but isn't discriminating against people who just want to find a better life. Neither of these people are addressing the real root of the debate, our need to have a path to citizenship for people who want to enter the US. Likewise, forcing one CEO to step down from Mozilla isn't a win, it's extorting action from a company to prove your point.

If extorting action is an acceptable action you are a fascist, and not a liberal. Liberals work to better the system, change the perspective of people, and influence positive changes through education and action. A true liberal would not have called for his resignation, they'd have started a charity dedicated to spreading the idea of equal rights for homosexual marriage. They'd then have ponied up $10,000 and asked that Mozilla show that they support equal rights by matching their donation. If the CEO had really changed, he'd match that $10,000 personally; assuming he did not there would be a pretty clear statement from the company that they support equal rights, and their CEO would not change this. $20,000 or $30,000 would go a long way to fighting for equal rights education, not to mention be positive PR for both O.K. Cupid and Mozilla. Instead we are treated to this media frenzy, where everyone is the loser.

That golf course that doesn't allow black people to join is spreading the belief that black people are somehow inferior, and this is their right. It is also within the rights of every black person in the area to allow the media to know this policy, and allow that golf course to respond. If they get the policy overturned because of pressures within the membership and community, all the better. If the policy stands then make sure not to offer them your patronage. ...

Click to expand...

Actually, according to the Equality Act, that's illegal. "But membership must not be solely on the basis of someone’s colour, for example, an association cannot say it will only accept white people or black people as members, and cannot offer different terms of membership on the basis of colour. "

However, to further your point, a club can allow membership on the basis of sexual orientation, identification, or sex, but only if that basis is a protected one, ie gay, transgender, women-only, etc. They may not if they are not "protected": "an association cannot offer membership terms, benefits and services that are directly discriminatory or indirectly discriminatory. "

As for "path to citizenship", we have one, a legal one. My fiancee is in the process of that, and as far as I'm aware, that is a legal path, unlike illegally entering the country, and then demanding a "path to citizenship". Exit the country, enter by one of the multitude of legal methods, and then follow the existing, legal, path. Please. We need more people that actually want to be here and do something for the country. Who was in the right? Not sure, but I know Gustaff broke the law, along with 40 illegal immigrants.

Back to the original topic, I'm all for Freedom of Speech. I utilize it on a regular basis. This gentleman, as I said above, would have to endure my complete protection to stand on the corner and spout his nonsense, altho it might turn into a full-fledged argument after enough noise from him. But I absolutely recognize, and would protect, his right to do so. My intolerance comes into play when he acted on that faulty belief. I didn't want him to step down. The only thing I wanted to know about where he worked was the same as the bigot from ChickFilet: So I know where not to take my business. I had the same reaction to Lowes. I bought Honey Maid Teddy Grahams this weekend for the same coin, on the otherside. He took an action, I don't encourage my users to use Mozilla or Chrome, just Chrome. His parents didn't teach him to play nicely with the other kids, and not be a bully, now someone else has to.

It has to change. Speech won't do it. I do not and will not advocate violence. But when the bigoted and the racist and the defective take actions to bully others, we have to take a stand.

As for the marriage comments above, @remixedcat and @Chevalr1c, I agree, for the most part. But when you offer and allow one group of people the right to juggle baby geese, you have to allow everyone. Anything else is bullying.